Day 1: Judge Amy Coney Barrett Brings 6 Little Human Shields To Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing

––Day 1: Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing: Blumenthal Urges Barrett To Recuse From Cases Involving Election––

Perhaps you’ve read, and therefore know, my earlier opinion on that matter.

I have also said that she should recuse herself, because he and his campaign are PLANNING on a Supreme Court fight in the course of this election – much WORSE than Bush v Gore, which will make that case look like a cakewalk. And, the President is COUNTING ON HER SUPPORT.

He has said as much:

“We need 9 justices. You need that. With the unsolicited millions of ballots that they’re sending, it’s a scam; it’s a hoax. Everybody knows that. And the Democrats know it better than anybody else. So you’re going to need 9 justices up there. I think it’s going to be very important. Because what they’re doing is a hoax, with the ballots. I think this will end up in the Supreme Court, and I think it’s very important that we have 9 justices. I think it’s better if you go before the election because I think this scam that the Democrats are pulling, it’s a scam, this scam will be before the United States Supreme Court. And I think having a 4-4 situation is not a good situation. If you get that. I don’t know that you’d get that. I think it should be 8-to-nothing or 9-to-nothing, but just in case it would be more political than it should be.”

(Hearing him talk is like listening to the idiotic babbling of a toddler – incessantly repeating himself.)

He is suborning her prejudicial support of his court case. That is a corrupt practice, not only for an independent judiciary, but for the Office of the President.

Precedent for recusal could be found in United States v Nixon in which Justice William Rehnquist recused himself because he’d earlier been Assistant Attorney General in Nixon’s administration.

And though Justices Warren Burger, Harry Blackmun, and Lewis Powell were nominated by Nixon, they did not recuse themselves, yet they ALL signed onto the unanimous decision AGAINST Nixon.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

The Democrats are taking the WRONG approach to her questioning.

Frankly, I’d much rather hear ANY of the Senators on the Judiciary Committee ask her something like:
“Why do you want this job?”
-or-
“What is your opinion of the rushed nature of these proceedings?”
-or-
“What is your opinion of the Kavanaugh hearings?”
-or, even more pointedly-
“What is your opinion of Brett Kavanaugh’s behavior and his numerous angry outbursts before this committee during his hearings?”
-and-
“What is your opinion of the President’s numerous remarks about his plans to contest election results potentially before you, and the Supreme Court, to the effect that ‘I think this will end up in the Supreme Court, and I think it’s very important that we have 9 justices. I think it’s better if you go before the election because I think this scam that the Democrats are pulling, it’s a scam, this scam will be before the United States Supreme Court. And I think having a 4-4 situation is not a good situation. If you get that. I don’t know that you’d get that.'”?

Trying to figure out, discern, or soothsay what she’ll do, or how she’ll vote on any future prospective case is effectively useless, politically, and for purposes of the hearing. What We The People TRULY need are GENUINE ANSWERS to SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS like those above.

And likewise, the Republicans are as well, who will probably ask her something soft, mushy, and marshmallow-like, such as, “What did you have for breakfast this morning?” -or- something equally inane, like “Tell us how you get the kids ready for the day.”

Speaking of kids, it has occurred to me that she’s using them as human shields by making them appear at the first day of her hearings.

Will her little human shields be there tomorrow?

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/520656-blumenthal-urges-barrett-to-recuse-from-cases-involving-election